Dear climate alarmists – we will never forget nor forgive.

It’s been a rough ten years as a so called “climate denier”. Every year the climate data would show a complete refusal to follow the accepted and official line, and every year the faith of the climate change faithful only seemed to get stronger and stronger. And their abuse of heretics like myself only got stronger and stronger. I have lost friendships over my stance on this issue. I have been attacked publicly by those around me on numerous occasions. And I have endured the casual mockery at social gatherings where the accepted response has been to pat me on the head in a condescending manner – here he is; our own climate denier. Isn’t he precious?

I have watched landscapes I love destroyed by the looming figures of gigantic wind farms that stand in mute mockery of my continued resistance to this enormous scam. I have observed with silent loathing the hypocrites who swan around in their enormous SUVs while proudly parading their dubious green credentials, even as ordinary families struggle with the reality of paying their ever increasing power bills. Only a few months ago a piece I wrote on the climate change scam elicited concerned emails and calls from people I know who cautioned me with the treacherous path I was taking.

But money talks and bullshit walks and the money is beginning to drop out of this con to end all cons.

The usual platitudes are being spoken but actions speak louder than words. Courtesy of Maggies Farm a couple of articles that caught my attention. The first from the Manhattan Contrarian who observes that climate alarmism doesn’t seem to be working anymore. Governments are beginning to invest mightily in coal fired power stations of all things. Who would have ever believed it? Meanwhile the dismal climate science is rocked by yet another scandal as employees and insiders, who previously refused to speak out for fear of the consequences, are now beginning to find their voices once again. They know which way the wind is blowing and the wind has begun to shift.

But here’s the thing. Once this all unravels, and it will unravel very quickly as soon as the money stops flowing, those of us on the side that is ludicrously described as being “deniers” are not going to forget. We are not going to let you bastards off the hook. We remember what has been said and written about us. We don’t even need to remember – the internet is forever. You’re not going to shrug off this one as just another Y2K. And you’re certainly not going to quietly move on to your next charade of choice that you’ll ram down our throats and wallets with your usual religious fervor.

Because the climate scam was too big. You pushed all of your chips into the center of the table and said “all in” with a smug stare at us sitting on the other side of the felt. And you busted out. Not only have you busted out but you don’t have any more chips to play. We’re not going to let you have any. From now on, every time you come up with some pathetic attempt to control populations through a fear based con we will remind everyone of climate change. Every time governments attempt to hijack science to support a political agenda we will bring up that old climate change bugbear. You are going to be shoved into the corner as the crazy bearded freak standing on the side of the road with his sign proclaiming the end of the world is nigh. We aren’t going to listen to you anymore. You have proven yourselves too stupid or untrustworthy to participate in public discourse.

And that goes for those in my social circle as well. You know who you are. You’re the ones that have been parroting the climate change line like blind simpletons for the past ten years. A decade of listening to you idiots chant on and on about “the science!” when you wouldn’t know science if it slapped you across the face with a Bunsen burner. A decade of watching you drive around with a “no more oil” sticker on your car bumper. I mean, how much more clueless do you have to be?

A decade of you retarded monkeys claiming that plant food is a pollutant. Years of you driving electric cars that only exist due to the biggest taxpayer subsidy in history while you are seemingly oblivious to the fact that they need to be plugged into an electric power grid. Decades of you opposing nuclear power which if any of your bogus claims were true would be the immediate answer if mankind truly were in some kind of climate peril. Decades of you pontificating at how the sea levels are going to rise while you buy palatial beachfront homes, and you then have the gall to sue local councils for sea erosion after you participated in demonstrations to stop them building a sea wall.

Years of you advocating for corn to be turned into bio fuel while there are still people in the world with not enough food to eat. Morons who buy solar panels with taxpayer subsidies and then put them on the side of the roof facing the street which signals your virtuousness but fails to get any sunlight. Years of you actually believing that there is such a thing called renewable energy and every time some country manages to get some above average power from them due to a fortuitous combination of weather events you scream it from the top of your lungs that this is incontrovertible proof that the entire world will soon be run on wave farms. Eleven years of you quoting total shit from An Inconvenient Truth.

Years of governments investing huge amounts of taxpayer money in renewable scams so that they were forced to parrot the official line otherwise their foolish investments would be at risk. Boy that chicken is coming home to roost. Years of listening to cretins living on tiny island nations who have completely mismanaged their delicate ecosystems but now want to blame it all on rich countries and guilt trip us into bailing them out. Years and years of a concerted attempt by the UN and other globalist organizations to subvert and destroy capitalism by using the climate scam as a proxy, while listening to people in your social circles whose entire lives and standard of living depend entirely on the capitalist model go along with the scam like lemmings following each other off a cliff.

And you lot had the nerve to label the very few of us who stood up to this rubbish and tried to protect the very system which you so mindlessly enjoy as being climate deniers?

You can all go fuck yourselves. We will not forget. We will remind you for the rest of our lives. We will write the histories. You will never again be able to publicly hide from your cowardice, your avarice, your gullibility, your ignorance, and your sheer stupidity. But at least you’ll still have that free market capitalist model to enjoy which you so badly wanted to throw in the recycling bin.

+1 well said. I’ve put up with this routinely as a teacher, including being loudly berated in front of several other staff members. All for suggesting that showing students Stossel’s piece in addition to AIT might be educational. Needless to say I left that school as soon as I had the opportunity.

In the HSIE staffroom, I no longer bother when they gush about Inconvenient Truth (I must admit I have refused to watch it so I have never seen it) and carry on about climate change. I sit quietly and watch and wait. I have learned over my reasonably long years that nothing I do and nothing I say is every going to change the minds of lefties, so I no longer bother and it is better to sit back, say nothing, watch and wait because I know that one day I will be able to point a finger and tell them that all those years ago, I was right and they were wrong. The same applies to Islam…nothing I say and nothing I do will ever convince them of the danger, will ever convince them that western civilisation is committing cultural, social and physical suicide by pretending that Islamists are different to Islam and “moderates” are really real Islam. They just won’t listen. I am glad that I am heading into my twilight years because I really don’t think I want to see the world that is being created. I was living in the wrong century last century so I am really not coping well with this century!

There’s a part to this that I find especially reprehensible. The various research organizations trashed untold amounts of raw data. When they adjusted the data they didn’t keep the raw data they only kept the new and improved data. That’s decades of data collection forever gone. Arrhenius wept.

I have always thought that about the money. When someone says the science is settled then clearly we don’t need to fund the research anymore, right? Scalded dogs would howl.

Plus the many hours I have had to spend correcting my kids about the propaganda being pushed in the government school system, state and secondary, even I have been taken aback over the many subjects this swindle has been pushed in.

And none of the believers could ever explain how taxing me more into oblivion and passing the money along to the government would make a difference. In addition to them using stuff like grocery stores and or not turning off their heating or cooling in their 3000 sq ft homes.

The deranged governor of California, has announced his intention to: ‘prove’ that this rubbish, i.e. ‘global warming’, is real – and is of course spending the taxpayers’ money to do so.

Apropos wind farms and other: ‘green’ nonsense, whenever I drive from Los Angeles to Half Moon Bay, I pass first signs put up by farmers who have insufficient water because the water that should be theirs has been diverted to: ‘save’ a three-inch fish! Farther on, there are the useless windmills – so many of them that it makes one believe one has been spirited away to an alien civilisation.

Another myth is the putative need to (as they call it, for to my way of thinking, it is not an English word): ‘recycle’. (Ayn Rand has called this immoral, as it is a usurpation of time that could be spent constructively.)

Some years back, I lived near a lunatic couple who drove an electric car – a hideous thing, and I no longer remember the make. One day, after they had plugged it in, it caused a short circuit that caused the house to burn down. I laughed uncontrollably at the spectacle.

Bravo. Many good people were duped by what after a period of study and fair-mindedness turned out to be poor science that evolved into a scam for Marxist anti-imperialism. I remember when the fusion experiment was lauded but within weeks another laboratory disproved the data. Such peer review is now a thing of the past.

In the early years of Global warming two sides of the debate were aired on mainstream television then a mixture of money, the UN, Gore, big investors, and eventually the same methodology of “as if” used for the theory of evolution, became applied to Climate change. Namely, if we operate as if the theory were true what would we find leading to massive confirmation bias?

As older wiser climatologist spoke out younger ones realised their mortgages were on the line and doubled down. The doctoring of data, the computer simulations that neither predict the future nor retrospectively correlate with the past and the introduction of bogus propaganda that would make Saul Alinsky blush has seriously damaged the credibility of science at multiple levels, destroyed careers and polluted political discourse.

Environmentalism used to be a cross political spectrum movement, the British Ecology party used to be for allotments, organic products, anarchic small state, against pollution and packaging, for cheap DIY solar panels, etc. Now they are water melons.
I put off seeing An Inconvenient Truth but when I did I assumed it had credibility.

A good engineering friend of mine, the person I go to for advice on technical things, knew someone who worked with the IPCC and in 2005 and he told me that all the predications were true: the flooding, polar ice caps melting everything. My friend was/is a rational person, We debated it on a walking trip in 2005; days spent talking over and over as I tried to think of solutions. He was just pessimistic. Fast forward 11 years. His company is involved in a tender to “reverse sea acidification”. His whole industry is now based on this scam. His income is now dependent on a lie.

I have fallen out with other friends over the scam. Once the hockey stick is exposed there can be no going back. Britain is heading for power cuts in the near future. When the Climate change movement finally implodes I will be delighted, vindicated, but the damage done to science and related industries will be immense. My 6 year daughter will pay for these decades of lost inventions, diverted creativity and misdirected investment.

Hi Adam, I hope you’re right, I really do. I would like our species to be able to live on planet earth. I’d be happy to have egg on my face for eternity if it meant my kids are able to grow up on a healthy planet.
On the other hand, if you are wrong and all those scientists are right, we’re all completely and utterly fucked.

Well that’s a relief.
By the way do you know if it’s going to rain on Friday? I’d better check the Bureau of Meteorology, oh wait, they’re a bunch of dismal climate science scammers, we can’t trust them 😦

Most of your post is directed at the hypocrisy of the left, which is fine, yes of course it’s ridiculous to drive an SUV and fly every other weekend and lecture people about the environment. But do you dispute the reality of a warmer climate? Are NASA lying when they say every other year is the warmest ever?

Or do you accept the fact of a warmer climate but dispute the reasons for it or its effects?

What, if anything, would convince you that you were wrong?

What, if anything ought to convince the green movement that they are wrong?

As far as NASA being capable of lying I’ll just post this quote from the article I linked in this piece:

A high-level whistleblower has told this newspaper that America’s National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) breached its own rules on scientific integrity when it published the sensational but flawed report, aimed at making the maximum possible impact on world leaders including Barack Obama and David Cameron at the UN climate conference in Paris in 2015.

If NOAA do it why wouldn’t NASA do it? Same government employees, same ideology, same once former respected institution on the way to completely discrediting itself.

Or do you accept the fact of a warmer climate but dispute the reasons for it or its effects?

The term climate change is a tautology. You need to remove the word change and just say climate. Because the climate has never been static. Ever. So with that in mind I do not ponder what the climate is doing. I merely react to what it is doing and adjust accordingly as humans have always done. Trying to change the weather I leave up to purveyors of religions. But I ask you this – would you rather the planet be warming or cooling? I know which one I’d rather have.

What, if anything, would convince you that you were wrong?

At least 5000 years of data. Because those are the sort of timelines that the earth’s climate revolves around. So we have some way to go.

What, if anything ought to convince the green movement that they are wrong?

These pricks for years have mocked us and compared us to flat-earth creationists and backward rednecks who haven’t got more than a 1st grade education while drowning in our illogical faith.

We’ve known it for years, but all of these “IFuckingLoveScience” zealots have been the real janissaries with faith so strong “science” and “reason” cant actually get penetrate through their “95%” of scientists back climate change rants.

Even in the case of the one gentleman who they kicked out Copernicus style, because while he believed in climate change – he didn’t think the evidence was there for it being primarily man-made. Talk about a cult.

You are all a bunch of delusional morons if you actually believe such malarkey. You need to see a psychiatrist. Seriously. S.E.R.I.O.U.S.L.Y.

It’s not rocket science, chuckleheads. You burn carbon, you get CO2. CO2 has a VERY long atmospheric half-life. It reflects escaping heat back to the Earth. Hence warming. If you can not accept this – you are a moron.

When you do the math, you will see that the number of barrels of oil plus the quantity of natural gas and coal burned, minus ocean absorption, accounts exactly for the increase in atmospheric CO2. The stoichiochemistry adds up. Radioactive carbon profiles show this CO2 has only been added recently. Humankind did this. All of it.

You Einsteins prefer to accept that every climate scientist on the entire planet, every single scientific organization on the planet, nearly every clear-thinking individual person on the planet outside of the U.S. is foolishly involved in a gigantic conspiracy (good f***ing grief, guys!) rather than to accept that you are – just as you likely never were – very good at thinking. Admit it – any of you geniuses EVER get good grades in science classes? Didn’t think so.

WTF do you think happens to all those billions of tons of CO2 coming out of our chimneys and exhaust pipes?!? Do you think it just disappears? Goes to Cloud CuckooLand?

And now you titanic irresponsible a**holes are getting all testy about things?!? You don’t like being treated like moronic a**holes? You all are gonna do something about it? F*** You.

Yes, CO2 is plant food, but so is water, and too much of that kills them. Too much food will pretty much kill anything actually. And to continue with the facts, atmospheric CO2 is a pollutant and so is the CO2’s acidification of the oceans. Oh, and the atmospheric oxygen levels on the planet are decreesing roughly in line with the CO2 levels increasing. Oxygen is good, very good for humans.

Dear gingerbaker. Fuck you you festering cunt. Nobody believes your bullshit anymore, including the real scientists. We’re not going to pay for a bunch of corrupt wankers to fly around the globe shrieking that the sky is falling and its all our fault. The earth has been MUCH warmer than it is now and it is more likely that we are at the beginning of another ice age than a period of global warming. Please kill yourself.

Floyd, the problem is that you’re threatened by what you don’t understand, which is why you use the language you do. You’re the uniformed trying to win an argument by screaming at the people smarter than you. Yes, the earth has been much warmer, but certainly not in the past 2 million years. That’s an important time frame as it’s when homo sapiens began evolving. No, we’re not entering a glacial period, we’re much closer to the last one, ending roughly 10,000 years ago, than the next one, about 80,000 years in the future. There are scientist who think that the next glacial period could be pushed back by as much as 50,000 years due to global warming. Even with a steady release of CO2 into the atmosphere it is modeled that temperatures will rise by 5 degrees above where they should be, which is not enough for us to completely miss the next ice age. That would take a 9 degree increase.

I wanted to respond to this a few weeks back but didn’t get the time. I’m stuck on a flight now so I’ll give it an hour’s attention.

Let’s start with your ‘Denier’ status. I too have never liked the term as it almost implies that you’ve given the subject some thought. Possibly done some research, reviewed some facts, and on a balance, you’re swinging against the 97% of scientific data that supports climate change as we are currently experiencing being caused by human activity. I think of ‘Deniers’ more as the ‘Lazies’. Obviously, there are those with an agenda or an interest in denying climate change, but seeing you don’t work in the coal, gas or oil energy producing sector nor are you funded by them, I think you’re one of the Lazies. But, let’s stick to Deniers becasue I think you like it.

Deniers support their arguments based on other Denier’s thinking without reference to facts, just like your article. Literally not a single factual reference. It’s a complete cycle with the Deniers, and because many conveniently produce 3 minute Youtube videos or nice short blogs that are easier to digest and easier to believe than facts, the cycle continues. Even the sources you quote in your blog are just other ranty bloggers, devoid of any facts outside their baseless opinion. One is a quoted fucking headline from The Daily Mail as a fact. On top of that, it was referring to a single piece of disputed data, not denying climate change as the headline suggests.

Actually getting an understanding of the multitudes of scientific and economic data which completely debunks the Denier’s arguments is far too much work for them so it’s easier to ignore or deny. Deniers can’t be bothered to actually look beyond each others opinions and educate themselves on what they’re arguing about, so the case of your article, you’re just playing the antagonist to appear knowledgeable. You don’t appear knowledgeable.

You have “watched landscapes you love destroyed….”. Well that is short sighted and selfish of you. Cities, towns, mines, factories, power plants, power lines, roads, railway tracks, dams, hydroelectric plants, housing estates, crops, airports etc have all destroyed landscapes someone has really loved. I think you’re being a little sensitive by categorising wind turbines as higher in the hierarchy of infrastructure that has destroyed landscapes you love in comparison to many of the others I mention. Weak, weak argument.

“Climate change scam”. That’s a good one. This is the easiest to debunk as Deniers don’t realise it isn’t just Climate science pointing to carbon causing climate change at 142 times faster than ever in the history of the earth. Deniers point to the odd scientific paper that was later shown to be wrong, or disputed as above, but don’t realise that that is how scientific reporting works. Scientists publish their findings, others critique it with their findings and then, over time, we move towards a scientific consensus, which is where we are right now with climate change as the science has developed since 1988. Deniers will point to a single error in a report produced by a Grad student at Durham university 4 years ago as supportive of their argument, but the Deniers stop there, too lazy to go on. There is no longer any credible data that debunks the current pattern of climate change being caused by the releasing of carbon into the atmosphere. To think otherwise is flat-earth thinking. I assume you accept CFC’s were destroying the o-zone. Science proved it, governments acted, and slowly but surely, the o-zone is on the mend.

Your 3 minute Youtube videos and ranty blogs ignore the millions of pages of hard evidence proving categorically that the release of carbon is changing our climate beyond anything nature has ever done. The 142 times faster is a quote from a biologist, not a climate scientist. What about botanists reporting that plants can’t evolve fast enough? Biologists proving the same about animal species across the planet? Even astrophysicists are telling us that the cycle of glacial and interglacial periods caused by the cycles of the sun cannot explain the current increase in average temperatures on earth in this period. In the history of the sun, the fucking sun, this is unprecedented. Obviously the mineralogists support the carbon argument due to their study of the composition of rocks over the life of the earth. Humans would not have evolved with the levels of carbon we are currently releasing into the atmosphere. The planet has spent billions of years burying the shite so we can thrive, which you seem to think is pure coincidence. Deniers point to the odd storm 30 years ago, the odd disputed number, the odd exceptional snowfall in Tasmania as proof of either no climate change or claim it is part of a natural cycle. Utter unsubstantiated ignorant rubbish.

Even the Rightwing flag waving poster boys of science, the seed geneticist are openly advertising they are working on genetically modified crops that they can adjust to mitigate the effects of climate change on crops. Oceanography, geology, petrology all agree to a degree of 97% that man is changing his climate, due to the release of carbon, faster than life as we know can support. Download a few NASA papers.

Oh, and before you feel good about 3% of scientific data supporting the Denier’s opinion. I’m afraid not. That 3% also includes inconclusive data (like our student from Durham) and also scientists, genuine scientists, who believe climate change is caused by god punishing humans for our sins, most specifically, homosexuality. So you’re in esteemed company.

I enjoy when you make economic arguments for a carbon based energy industry being maintained as opposed to a diversified sustainable energy industry. You should stop, as you clearly have no understanding of even the most basic fundamentals of economics. Do you know what oligopolistic behaviour is? Obviously not, but in effect it is the structure of the coal, gas and oil sectors. A small number of players colluding to control the market. The carbon based energy sector spends hundreds of millions of dollars lobbying and paying off politicians with future consultancies to continue supporting their industry without increase competition from sustainable sources of energy. They literally pay to produce your Youtube videos you like and support your cyclic bloggers. This is no conspiracy theory. I don’t think you would deny the existence of the hundreds of lobbying companies that openly advertise their services for sale. Why does the fossil fuel industry spend the money? Well, that’s what all industries do to protect their market, and although it is killing us, I can fully see their economic reasons for doing it. Competition is bad for both oligopolistic and monopolistic behaviour and the companies and countries involved want to protect their profits.
When you raise the UN and other globalist organisations, which do you refer? The WTO maybe? What policies are you referring to? Not sure their policies are supporting a defence against climate change.

The economic problem for the carbon based energy sector is that the easy oil/gas/coal has now gone. When they could just scrape the surface and there was the juice, energy was cheap because production was cheap. Now we’re into deep-well and arctic drilling, fracking, oil sand and tar extraction. So, the marginal revenue product (MRP) on units of energy per dollar invested is far lower than at anytime in our history. So, you get far less energy returned per unit of investment than ever before.

An example of how sensitive this is was the recent bit of foot shooting the Saudi’s did to try and scupper the US fracking industry by over supplying the oil market. Although it worked, it destroyed their cash reserves and oil prices are still years from recovering as they couldn’t turn off the flood. The Saudi’s dropped the price of oil, which killed off the growth of the fracking industry in the US as the oil and gas was cheaper to buy than extract. Sustainable energy sources are now doing the same by producing cheaper energy having a downward effect on the end price in the heavily subsidised carbon energy sector. Coal prices are through the floor because they can no longer compete on an even field. Why do you think the Australian tax payers are picking up the bill for the Carmichael mine? It is economically unviable. Energy is moving away from coal and without subsidies they won’t afford to get the coal out of the ground. Gas will follow.

You are completely wrong about the cost to the economy of subsidising electric vehicles and solar. Deniers don’t know what externalities are so they don’t factor these in to the cost of carbon energy. Economists do. Governments want to but their paymaster, the oil and coal industry, won’t let them. Good morning USA & Australia! There is no resurgence of coal. There is no clean coal. The mines opening now are already redundant and will be subsidised by the tax payer for generations to come. Solar is already cheaper than coal. Wind power is cheaper than coal. Take the subsidies away from coal, oil and gas, the difference is in factors. Add in the cost of externalities and there is absolutely no argument for new power being produced with carbon based materials. The technology exists and although sustainable energy source development is in its infancy, it is still proving to hold its own which is why day after day articles appear from all over the world of new ground being broken with the use of sustainable energy sources.

Also your argument on electric cars using energy produced by coal is completely redundant. The reasons governments support electric cars is pollution, particularly in cities, which is related, but a more immediate issue to climate change for a local politician working on a 3-4 year voting cycle. Cities are choking. People are being poisoned. City authorities are reacting. Reduce the fossil fuel burning on the streets of a city by promotion of electric or hybrid cars, again ignoring the externalities (far too complicated to understand so stay lazy) of burning fossil fuel elsewhere, cities are more liveable with less choking citizens.

Back to MRP. Carbon based energy sources are at the end of their life. This isn’t an ideological statement, this is fact as economically they are becoming too expensive to extract. Demand will slow as costs rise and companies will look for cheaper sources, which is happening globally without government intervention. So the MRP on investment in new energy sources far outweighs the MRP on investment in new carbon burning infrastructure. Again, this isn’t even factoring in externalities, which just buries carbon if it were. This isn’t just with energy, again, this is basic economics across any sector. Investment in new technology is better for an economy than pumping investment into old technology. The unit returns are much higher in new technology as the leaps in returns as technology innovates is higher than trying to squeeze ever reducing returns on just getting slight efficiency gains in old technology. Obviously, if you own a coal fired power station, doing nothing is best for profits, which is why they need subsidising to the degree they do.

Where you have underdeveloped economies, and I remember you once criticising Bolivia, or some such place, for sustainable energy achievements suggesting some fortuitous weather conditions, the return is much greater as they don’t have the inherited old technology to support or upgrade. They made an announcement they had run their country for 5 days on 100% sustainable energy, which you incoherently mocked. More on your donkey thinking below. Bolivia, and many similar countries, are successfully using wind, hydro, solar etc to power their countries as they don’t have a dying carbon energy sector to prop up. Also, New Zealand recently made similar claims, as did Switzerland and Germany I think. So, their economic argument for not developing redundant technology is strong and proving successful.

Finally point on technology. Again, the Deniers continue with their argument that the wind doesn’t always blow, that the sun doesn’t always shine, the rivers don’t always flow. I agree. Which is why, outside of the extreme left (you extreme Rights need them so you can fire dumb arguments back and forth through ranty blogs) everyone sees the importance of a diversified energy sector, which allows for future improvements in technology. This is where you Righties (the Deniers are always on the extreme Right) heavily contradict yourselves. The Right likes less government intervention, unless it suits them like the carbon energy sector. Why not support diversification? We can have wind, solar, hydro, tidal (maybe not), nuclear (I think we can all agree that the cost of nuclear is inhibiting that technology) and fossil fuels as a part of an overall diversified energy sector. Infrastructure connects everything and as one produces more as other don’t, sources kick in and out as required. Why must it only be carbon based? The reason is the power and money of the carbon based industry and the head start it has. We have diversified transport systems and diversified farming technology but the Deniers think that unless you can dig it up and burn it isn’t a viable energy source.

I like to compare the Deniers and the current sustainable energy sector to a particular event in 1903. There you are one day walking up a hill pulling along your donkey, with your shit bucket in the other hand, when you come across two brothers about to launch the first powered aircraft. You start yelling and laughing at them. “it’ll never work you dumb asses, you’ll always need the donkey”. After the first powered flight last only 12 seconds you’re on the ground laughing your head off. You point to the brother’s donkey and scream “ha ha ha, you even had to ride a donkey to get your contraption up here”. The second flight, scarcely longer at less than a minute has you shrieking with laughter as you turn your back walking off, only stopping to pick up the donkey’s shit, so sure of yourself that the science is wrong, that the technology won’t change your life, despite what is right in front of your eyes. The next two decades saw the trajectory of flight development at almost vertical degrees. Exactly where we are with sustainable and renewable energy.

The cowardice you accuse people of is purely from your side. You’re threatened by others who possess knowledge not open to you because you’re too lazy to look at it. You use simpleton, outdated arguments; solar panels on the wrong side of the roof; Y2K; you wouldn’t know science if it hit you in the face. Seriously? I mean you managed to write all that tosh, screaming and swearing without a single valid argument or reference to fact, because some other Deniers decided to declare that climate change is solved simply because Trump won, again without a shred of supported fact. You lot are just shouting at people for knowing more than you.

Oh yes. The technology exists so I can continue to enjoy my fossil fuel powered flight, while a sustainable diversified energy sector reduces carbon being released into the atmosphere to below dangerous levels. Diversification includes some use of fossil fuel for the next generation or two.

Like your article Adam. Most of these people are nothing but watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside. It’s all based on politics and money. I’m a meteorologist and have a degree in atmospheric sciences. I have looked into both sides of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) argument using the “scientific method”. Using my knowledge from physics and the data from the climate models and comparing it to real-world observations, I have concluded that AGW theory is an invalid scientific theory. Also, two of my college professors were skeptical of AGW.

Here is a summary of my findings from me and other scientists from 2015.
[Fundamentally, the Earth’s climate probably is the most complicated non-living system one can study, because it naturally is an integration of chemistry, physics, biology, geology, hydrology, oceanography, and cryology (the study of snow and ice; glaciology) and also includes human behavior by responding to and affecting human activities. The commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of carbon dioxide and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics. This paper, using the “scientific method”, articulates these gross errors in the “consensus science” behind AGW theory from both me and other accredited scientists listed in my references. Generally, supporters of AGW theory issue “climate reports” based predominantly on political advocacy and highly speculative data from mathematical computer models. These “reports” overpower their readers with detail, written in dense language that is difficult for the general public to decipher. The popularly promoted accounts in these “reports” reduce an extremely complex climate change process to a simplistic “global warming” argument based on carbon dioxide and some other compounds in the atmosphere that absorb infrared radiation. In their pursuits, advocates utilize atmospheric temperature measurements of relatively short term trends, overlook the influence of natural events that affect our climate, and emphasize a greenhouse-related rationale (i.e. the “greenhouse effect”). However, their “greenhouse” analogy is scientifically incorrect given that their inaccuracies originate from misapplication of the electromagnetic spectrum, disregard for three fundamental laws of physics, and the distortion of greenhouse operation, absorption/emission behavior of photons, and water vapor’s influence on the climate system. Advocates offer no clean supporting data from experiments carefully designed to minimize confounding by natural influences nor make any genuine attempt to validate their numerical results by comparing it to real-world observations from quality controlled instrumentation. In fact, the many large global warming projections made by their “climate models” have not been realized nor will they in the coming years. The average warming rate of the 34 CMIP5 IPCC models is greater than observations, suggesting models are too sensitive to carbon dioxide. This is apparent in the RSS satellite dataset that shows no global warming for 18 years 3 months from October 1996 to December 2014 (November 2015 Update: No Global Warming for 18 years and 9 months) despite the ever increasing levels of carbon dioxide being released into our atmosphere. In addition, the measured rate of global warming taken as the mean of all five principal global-temperature datasets (1990 to 2014) has been just under half of the warming the IPCC had predicted in 1990. In reality, the thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Correct interpretation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics and a sound comprehension of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no back-radiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Thus, considering the many misrepresentations and the absence of clean supporting data, the “consensus science” behind AGW theory has hardly been “settled”; it has yet to be addressed.]

In addition, the “consensus of scientists” claim is purely non-sense as far as it being used to give creditability to a “scientific theory”. The term “consensus” is a social-political concept and has no role what-so-ever in the physical sciences. Dr. Michael Crichton once wrote: “Historically the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is settled.” Politicians pay for science, but scientists should not be politicians. A scientist is described as “the seeker after truth” and does not put his trust in any mere consensus, however venerable. In its place, he submits what he has learned from it to reason and demonstration. Science is not a fashion statement, a political party, or a belief system. Actually, the objective of science is “truth”. Science attains to the “truth” by accepting no word as revealed and no hypothesis as tenable until it has been subjected to falsification by observation, measurement, and the application of previously established theory to the results. To address it (i.e. the “scientific method”), a scientist proposes a falsifiable hypothesis. During the error-elimination phase that follows, others demonstrate it, disprove it, or more often do neither, whereupon it gains some credibility not because a consensus of experts endorses it but because it has survived falsification. Head-counts, however expert the heads, play no part in science. The celebrated mathematician, astronomer, and philosopher of science Abu Ali Ibn al-Haytham, or Alhazen, is justly celebrated as the founder of the “scientific method”. He also did not consider that “consensus” had any role in science. Thales of Miletus, Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Karl Popper, and Richard Feynman thought much the same and said so. T.H. Huxley said: “The improver of natural knowledge absolutely refuses to acknowledge authority, as such. For him, skepticism is the highest of duties: blind faith the one unpardonable sin.” The great physicist Richard Feynman agreed: “Science,” he said, “is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” He also said no matter how smart you are, who you are, or how beautiful your theory, if data doesn’t support your theory, it is wrong. Furthermore, Albert Einstein noted a model or a hypothesis cannot “prove” anything. But data can invalidate a hypothesis or model. Einstein described the “Key” to science when he said: “The case is never closed. Many experiments may prove me right, but it takes only one to prove me wrong.” Simply, science by head-count is mere politics and can also be damagingly anti-scientific. If politics and their inquisition on the free speech of natural skepticism in science are allowed to sway or intimidate scientists, then true science ceases to exist. Nowadays, science is in a state of turmoil thanks to “consensus policy” dictating and distorting scientific data for the benefit of the ruling class. Thus, science is in need of both a reformation and a renaissance. After all, scientists are first and foremost to cast skepticism before certainties and absolutes in their pursuit of the “truth”.